This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Peel police’s sexual-harassment records revealed: records

Peel Police Chief Jennifer Evans Peel Chief Jennifer Evans has said the force takes officer misconduct seriously, though she stressed that just two per cent of Peel’s roughly 2,000 officers find themselves getting in trouble over the course of their careers. (Bernard Weil / Toronto Star)

Peel police Const. Perry MacVicar was demoted for six months for sexually harassing two colleagues he was training. Alone in a cruiser, he asked one woman if he could touch her breasts and then showed her pictures of his erect penis on his phone.

Peel police Const. Perry MacVicar sat in a police car with the female dispatcher he was training in 2012.

They were alone.

He first asked if she liked certain sexual acts. He then told her about the time another dispatcher showed him her breasts. And after that, he asked if he could touch her breasts.

The woman refused. MacVicar, a veteran officer working as a driving instructor with the force’s training bureau, then showed the woman photographs on his phone, including two pictures of his erect penis.

“Ya, it is that big,” he said, according to an agreed statement of facts filed at the officer’s subsequent disciplinary hearing, where he pleaded guilty. He is still an officer with Peel police.

Article Continued Below

After a nearly yearlong fight for Peel police’s internal disciplinary records, the Star can now reveal the serious misconduct of MacVicar and some of the other roughly 60 Peel officers formally disciplined since 2010. This story is part of the Star’s ongoing Breaking Badge investigation into police misconduct across the GTA and parts of Ontario.

After showing the woman a picture of his penis, MacVicar unholstered and unloaded his gun and gave it to the woman. When another vehicle approached their car, he suggested the woman hide the weapon “between her legs.”

The following year, in 2013, MacVicar repeated similar behaviour with another civilian trainee. He showed the woman photographs of him naked and asked for her number. He contacted her multiple times in the following days, until she told him to stop.

The veteran officer was demoted to a lower pay grade for six months and told to take workplace-harassment training.

MacVicar refused to comment when reached by the Star. At his disciplinary hearing, his lawyer said his actions were “gross misjudgments” that were an “aberration” in his otherwise unblemished 27-year career.

A recent Star investigation revealed the reckless and often criminal actions of officers from Toronto, Durham, York, Halton and the Ontario Provincial Police: they drove drunk (sometimes in police cruisers), beat their spouses, invented charges and interfered with investigations to help out friends. The vast majority were allowed to continue being police officers.

Unlike neighbouring forces, Peel refused to release its full disciplinary decisions. The service initially redacted names of the offending officers, and then released only Tweet-sized summaries of each case.

In September, nearly ten months after the Star’s initial request, the service said it revised its policy and would release the records. Peel’s police union then stepped in and sought an injunction from Ontario’s privacy watchdog citing “deep concern” from officers.

That injunction was unsuccessful. By late October, the force had released all of its decisions since 2010.

There were three other Peel cases involving sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour towards female colleagues. This story will focus on those cases.

Peel Chief Jennifer Evans would not be interviewed for this article. In a previous interview with the Star, she said the force takes officer misconduct seriously, though she stressed that just two per cent of Peel’s roughly 2,000 officers find themselves getting in trouble over the course of their careers.

“These two per cent are impacting on all the great work that is going on,” she said. “When you take an oath to serve and protect the community, you should be held to a higher standard.”

Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario, said the group’s officers and civilian personnel “put their lives on the line everyday for their communities and take pride in the badges they wear, the pledge they take and the people they serve.”

The Star contacted all officers named in this story. None commented. All the information comes from their disciplinary decisions.

Const. Harvey Sham was disciplined in 2012 for creating a “poisoned” work environment for his “vulnerable” female subordinates. In 2010, Sham was in charge of 10 civilian employees, mostly female, working as wiretap monitors. Over a period of several months Sham repeatedly made inappropriate sexual gestures and commented on the women’s appearance.

He would give and request unwanted shoulder massages or would put his arms around the waists of the female monitors. One female employee caught him looking at photographs of naked women on his work computer on two separate occasions. Sham promised he would delete the photographs, but a later audit of his computer found he had not done so.

“Any unwelcome touching or sexually based comment, action or innuendo in a police environment, would be, in the eyes of the public, particularly reprehensible,” said the presiding officer in Sham’s case, adding that the misconduct was aggravated by Sham’s supervisory role over young women confined to desks.

Sham pleaded guilty. His union representative noted the officer had no history of similar behaviour and had worked with many female officers “without incident.”

He was demoted six months to a lower pay grade and ordered to take harassment training.

Lawyer David Butt has represented many police officers at the tribunal, including female officers who have been victims of sexual harassment. The hierarchical structure of police forces can make female officers “vulnerable to abuse,” he says, adding that it can be risky for officers to speak out against their superiors. Additionally, while policing has been evolving from a male-dominated profession, it takes time for women to move up the ranks to more senior roles.

It’s an issue not confined to Peel. While it is clear that many female police officers and civilians work free of harassment, it continues to be an issue that requires vigilance, says lawyer Butt.

In 2012, a staff sergeant with the Toronto police told a female subordinate, in front of other officers, he would “prefer to see her in high brown boots” and that he would have to spank her. He was docked 20 days pay.

A Peel officer who has been with the force for more than a decade said she and other female officers have experienced discrimination at work because they’re women, whether it’s sexual harassment or being overlooked for a promotion.

While it has improved in recent years, she said many female officers are still wary of speaking out against their male colleagues or superiors.

“Once you’ve spoken out, you’re dirt. You’re marked for life,” said the officer, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisal.

“It’s always been a boys club. It’s hard. You just don’t count as much as they do.”

In 2014, Peel officer Paul Dhillon was disciplined for sending a series of inappropriate text messages to a lower ranking female officer and two civilian employees, some of a sexual nature.

The prosecutor in the case argued Dhillon was using “his position of authority on vulnerable women.” The presiding officer called Dhillon’s misconduct “workplace harassment of a sexual nature” and noted the women did not consent to receiving the messages. She said the public would be “appalled” by the behaviour.

Peel police refused to release the agreed statement of facts to the Star, which would offer more details on Dhillon’s case.

At his hearing, Dhillon admitted to having had a problem with alcohol, which he used to cope with stressful and traumatic experiences he had in his professional and personal life. He said he sent the text messages at night when he was drinking, though the presiding officer noted one text was sent while he was on duty.

The decision also said Dhillon was genuinely remorseful of his misconduct and that he wrote letters apologizing to the women.

He pleaded guilty and was demoted from sergeant to first-class constable for 18 months.

When MacVicar — the officer who sexually harassed subordinates in a police car — spoke with internal investigations, he suggested he didn’t think there was a problem with sexism or misogyny on the force. “The culture has changed so much from the police women’s side. It’s almost — they are worse than the guys now,” he said.

Regardless of how some officers may behave, there is no excuse or justification for MacVicar’s conduct, Supt. Kim Whyte wrote in her decision to demote the officer.

“Constable MacVicar’s misconduct is inappropriate and unacceptable, especially in light of the trust placed in him by the organization as a trainer.”

Mishandling evidence:

Six Peel officers have been disciplined for mishandling or misappropriating evidence they seized during investigations. One officer didn’t turn in an iPod, while another was found with nearly 20 grams of crack cocaine from a drug bust.

After a mall security guard handed over 30 baggies of marijuana he’d confiscated in 2012, Const. Jae Evans only submitted 10 as evidence. After initially refusing to answer questions from investigators, Evans said he’d discarded all the drugs in a garbage can under his desk. The 10 baggies he did submit, he told investigators, had actually been confiscated from two teens in an unrelated matter to cover up for the missing evidence.

Officer’s defence: Evans apologized to the tribunal for the embarrassment to his service.

In the tribunal: Evans pleaded guilty in 2013 and was demoted to the lowest constable pay grade for six months with the opportunity to work his way back to his former rank.

Sexual dalliances on duty:

Several Peel officers have been disciplined for abusing their work time or using police-issued cellphones or computers for sexual dalliances. Three officers were docked pay for texting pictures of their penises to women they were courting, at least one while on-duty. One of the men, stationed at Pearson International Airport, was in partial uniform in the picture. Another one was disciplined because he was trying to woo a victim he met while responding to a domestic-assault call.

In another case, an internal investigation into Const. Timothy Brooks’ internet usage while at work found the officer spent 44 hours over an 11-day period in 2011 accessing “unacceptable” websites, surfing escort services, participating in sexual chat rooms and downloading pornography. Brooks had also been using his Peel email address to organize “sexual encounters.”

“Gotta love a man in uniform and with handcuffs,” wrote one recipient in response to an email from Brooks’ police account.

Officer’s defence: Brooks’ lawyer said he pleaded guilty, apologized and admitted he had a problem. He had no disciplinary history and had commendations in his file.

In the tribunal: Brooks pleaded guilty in 2013 to discreditable conduct and neglect of duty and was demoted two years to a lower pay grade.

Boozing and driving

The most common disciplinary matter, the Star’s investigation found more than 60 cases of cops in the GTA and parts of Ontario nailed for drinking and driving in the last several years. Eight of those cases are from Peel. One officer hit a guardrail on Highway 401, causing his vehicle to spin out. Another berated the sergeant arresting him for not showing “professional courtesy” and for “ruining his life.”

Drinking with other officers in a parking lot after a charity soccer match in 2013, Const. Peter Hill had a couple of vodka-and-Gatorades and a few beers before leaving in his car around 2:30 p.m. While driving he admitted to swerving off the road into the grass. Police found him passed out in the back seat of his car in a nearby parking lot. Several hours after he was arrested, he took a breathalyzer and blew more than double the legal limit.

Officer’s defence: Hill pled guilty in criminal court and at the tribunal. His union representative noted he pulled over into the parking lot once he realized he was impaired and that his employment history was exemplary.

In the court: Hill pled guilty to having care or control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol. He was given a 12-month driving probation and a $1,000 fine.

In the tribunal: Hill was demoted to a lower pay grade for one year with the chance to review after six months.

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com